The similarity of two trademarks “themea” is similar to the two trademarks

A. Whether a trademark is similar should be determined by whether the two trademarks used for the same kind of product objectively, collectively, or entirely observe the appearance, name, and concept of the trademark in an objective, overall, and separately, are likely to cause confusion or confusion in the trade. As long as there are different parts among the trademarks, it is easy to cause confusion in the overall observation, even if there are different parts among the trademarks, it should be deemed similar trademarks.

B. The trademark "TRAMYCIN" and the trademark "TERRAMYCIN" are composed of two kinds of letters in appearance, namely, the trademark "T" and "T" are composed of three parts, and the remaining Roman letters are composed of three parts, so "T" is different in terms of "te" and "R" as "te", but when the whole is observed, the "teme letter" and "teme letter" are similar to each other, and both are likely to cause confusion or misunderstanding in transactions.

Article 5 of the Trademark Act

Jaco-spha and commercial companies

East Asia Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Patent Court Decision 99 decided September 21, 1965

The original adjudication shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the appellant shall be examined.

According to the original decision, the court below, compared to the registered trademark of this case (A) and the mark of this case (A), with regard to the former consisting of TERRAMYCIN, the latter indicated the latter as DONG-A under the following DONG-A, and the latter is called "tetra," and the latter cannot be deemed as similar in terms of partial or overall observation.

In addition, with regard to the former's name, it is clear that the (A) mark is named as "tetrama," while it is obvious that it will be naturally named as "Dong Antetrama," because the DON-A or Dong characters, etc., which may reduce friendly friendliness among ordinary consumers, are clearly indicated.

However, this case's trademark "I" and (a) it is hard to see that the word "I" as a whole is similar to the word "IEM," so it is hard to see that the word "IEM is similar to the word "IEM," and the word "IEM is similar to the word "IEM," so it is hard to see that the word "IEM is similar to the other word "IEM," and it is hard to see that the word "IEM is similar to the other word "IEM," and it is hard to see that the word "IEM is similar to the other word "IEM," and it is hard to see that the word "IEM is similar to the other word "IEM," and it is hard to see that the word "IEM," as a whole, "IEM," and it is hard to see that the word "IEMM," composed of "IEM," and the word "IEM" as "IEM,".

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-dong and Do-dong Do-won Round